Update: The Flying Sardar?
UPDATE: Canadian courts ruled against Baljinder Singh’s request for a religious exemption to its mandatory motorcycle helmet law. While the court found that the law DID violate his right to religious freedom, they felt that the net benefit to the country’s healthcare system justified such an infringement [Globe & Mail]. The court also argues that failure to wear a helmet raises the potential for emotional risk and trauma should Mr. Singh — and other Sikhs — suffer injury in a collision. I found the last point a little weird; was the court attempting to avoid civil suits against it for negligence or some other such duress (lawyer-readers, can you help me out here)? Mr. Singh will be appealing the Ontario decision.
</update>
We saw this story last week, but I wanted to comment on the recent coverage of a kesdari Sikh who challenged Ontario’s motorcycle helmet statute under grounds that it is unfairly applied to turban-wearing Sikhs [cite 1, cite 2]:
Ontario Court Judge James Blacklock was told yesterday that, in order to disprove a Crown theory that turbans unravel at high speed and cause accidents, Mr. Badesha drove around Cayuga Speedway at 110 kilometres an hour… Mr. Badesha and the human rights commission maintain the helmet law discriminates against Sikhs because their religion obliges them to cover their long hair with nothing more than a turban.
Apparently the twist in the story has shifted from whether a religious exemption is ok to whether the disproportionate likelihood of injury, and the assumed increased cost to Canada’s public health care system, warrant an exemption. From a panthic perspective, Mr. Badesha’s objection to the mandatory helmet law is reasonable and justified.
However, we know from experience that other countries have adopted differing approaches to the Sikh right to maintain his/her uniform. In the United States, courts and commissions have ruled in both police departments and city agencies that wearing the turban does NOT violate uniform policies, and that creating policies without accommodation violates individuals’ right to the free exercise of religion. Conversely, in France an uber-strict ban on “religious articles” (barring, of course, “minor” Christian pieces) has led to a series of disputes about the role of religion in public space.
Sikhs face various challenges when trying to explain accommodation and observance in regions where Sikhi is not the default or majority faith. So we have a few questions at play here:
- Would this issue be moot if Canada did not have public health care?
- Would attitudes towards “minority accommodation” differ if the default understanding of faith had a normalized view of religious uniforms?
- Given that, in the U.S. and Canada, Sikhi is still not understood as a mainstream faith, what are tools, analogies, and explanations Sikhs could use to help explain the context and motivation for our religious requirements and observances?
- What qualifies as accommodation, and what is seen as “normal”?
Random Posts
The situation with turbans has not resolved in the US. A friend of mine is able to take and pass the test for Sheriff in Los Angles, but not acctually become a sheriff. He can however, volunteer his time and wear a turban.
my brother was denied a job at the U.S. centers for disease control (CDC) because his turban would violate their uniform requirements for the particular post.
Have either of your relatives or friends sought legal counsel? In the case of becoming a sheriff, I’m pretty certain that would be considered an inappropriate requirement (given that other courts and districts have decided otherwise). I would argue the same for the CDC — there are doctors who wear turbans in the OR.
Not denying your experiences, just wondering if perhaps there should be more push back.
Such situations call for us to fight for equality. For those of you that want to but don’t know how to – please reach out to organizations such as http://www.UNITEDSIKHS.org. They are Sikhs who are experts in the legal field and have experience with representing Sikhs and their cause.
We must fight the fight, no matter what the outcome is. Even Guru Gobind Singh Ji lost a few. Equality doesn’t come easy but our community has the minds and the hearts to make it happen.
I implore you (Sonny, Siri Atma) to highlight these injustices and seek action. Do it for yourself, do it your fellow Sikhs, do it for your kids.
The below is from the article located here that shows the effect on the budget is minuscule:
I always thought that the turban was not an actual requirement in Sikhi, and that, rather, it was the covering of the head that was important. In your link to the article on the Reht Maryada above, I presume that you are quoting the above requirement:
Perhaps the original requirement is lost in translation? Interpreting the above strictly would seem to imply the following:
1) You cannot wear a patka (parna)
2) You cannot remove your turban inside the home
I really believe the interpretation here is central to the case. If wearing of an actual turban is not the requirement, and a hybrid solution exists (e.g. wearing a special type of helmet over a patka), then this seems to favour the prosecution in this case.
If this is the case, then maybe this is more of an argument of wearing a particular style of turban while riding a motorcycle.
Aman,
You raise an interesting point; however, I do not believe the interpretation you reference will have any significant bearing on the case. The Crown may indeed raise the question of what type of turban constitutes the required turban, but I cannot see them going very far with it.
It certainly helps that the common stance regarding the turban as an article of faith helps establish Mr. Badesha’s wearing of the turban as part and parcel of a genuine belief system; however, Canadian courts would not frown upon Mr. Badesha’s adherence to wearing a turban, even if he was part of a tiny minority of Sikhs who felt the turban was necessary to their faith.
The court’s analysis would hinge upon whether Mr. Badesha’s personal belief was genuine, regardless of whether the majority of Sikhs saw the turban as insignificant, or even if accepted interpretation of the Sikh code frowned upon the wearing of a turban. This principle has been established in Canadian case law.
As in all Canadian cases involving the infringement of religious rights/freedoms, the court will focus on accomodation. Very generally, the court’s anaylsis is likely to touch upon the following questions:
1. Was there an infringement of Mr. Badesha’s freedom to practice his religion? (Yes, clearly so.)
2. If so, can Mr. Badesha’s religious rights be accomodated without causing undue hardship?
Without having followed the case, I’m pretty sure the Crown’s arguments rests pretty heavily on the premise that accomodation of Mr. Badesha’s rights will cause undue hardship (to the health care system, to insurance companies, to enforcement agencies etc.)
In a similar case in British Columbia (1990, Dhillon v. British Columbia), the court gave great weight to statistics, and found the potential impact of turban-wearing motorcyclist Sikhs on public health care or insurance rates, to be statistically insignificant.
Given that Mr. Badesha’s counsel has brought similar statistics to the court’s attention, and that the Dhillon case is a compelling precedent, I find it difficult to believe the court will not give similar weight to the stats in this case.
The original Flying Sardar.
P. Singh,
Thank you for your very informative analysis. You stated that Canadian case law has established that the court only needs to determine if Mr. Badesha’s personal belief was genuine. Do you know if this applies to all genuine personal beliefs, or only to personal beliefs that are attributed to a well-established religion? I’m wondering if case law already makes a distinction of what constitutes a well-established religion.
I did not know that the court’s analysis depends upon whether the religious accommodation causes undue hardship. In hindsight, this makes sense, as the Crown’s arguments do depend on demonstrating some sort of adverse effect on the public (e.g. health care costs and insurance rates).
Based on this analysis, it does seem to me now that Mr. Badesha has a good chance of winning his case.
Hi Aman,
You’re welcome, and again, you raise an interesting question: whether the same analysis applies to all genuine personal beliefs or only those attributed to a well-established religion.
I should probably know the answer, but unfortunately I do not have a concrete answer. That said, I would venture that, yes, in Canada, the same analysis would apply to genuinely held beliefs, irrespective of whether they are attributed to a well-established religion.
As far as turban-related, kirpan-related cases go, most times, the Sikhs involved will get written letters from gurdwara committees, the Akal Takhat, Sikh authorities etc. to establish the ‘genuiness’ of wearing the turban and/or kirpan. Now, this does raise the question – why would they need these other bodies to establish the genuiness of their belief…from a practical standpoint, I’m guessing it’s a lot easier to quickly establish ‘genuiness’ via established institutions.
I think you are right – Mr. Badesha’s chances look very good.
[quote comment="772"]Have either of your relatives or friends sought legal counsel?
Not denying your experiences, just wondering if perhaps there should be more push back.[/quote]
yeah, my brother was in touch with SALDEF and the ACLU about it, they sent a complaint letter, but to date the policy has obviously not been changed. it somehow falls under the same uniform requirements that bans religious headwear in the military. my brother actually has been working for the CDC for the last several years, but he was forced out of a particular post (that paid better and had better benefits) because of the uniform requirement. it’s totally ludicrous and must be changed.
oh and of course i agree that we must fight and struggle for justice and against all the ways that racism continues to infect this society. and in doing this, we have to connect the fight for our rights as sikhs to the struggles of other oppressed and marginalized communities and build real solidarity and a vibrant movement.
Sikhs should be reasonable in all their demands. I have knowledge of some people who have said that it is unfair that Sikhs are not allowed to openly carry 3 foot long kirpans on the streets of England. This is clearly unreasonable because such a thing will cause alarm and distress to non Sikhs. There has to be reciprocity.
Ruby,
Are you saying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable? That a Sikh wanting to ride a motorcycle sans helmet, albeit in contravention of existing law, is being unreasonable?
It seems that you are implying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable – I don’t know what other connection the “3 foot long kirpan” example has to Mr. Badesha’s legal battle.
Please clarify. Thanks.
I should point out, I don’t believe the measure of unreasonableness is tied to what causes alarm and distress to others. Alarm and distress in such cases are often a product of ignorance. Adherence to religious principles should not be limited by the ignorance of others.
There are many, many people who are alarmed and distressed by 5 inch long kirpans in the work place, or by the fact that young Sikh children wear kirpans to school. In general, I would not say Sikhs wearing kirpans to work or to school are being unreasonable in excercising (or demanding) their right to do so – despite the fact many non-Sikhs are (initially at least) distressed by this article of faith.
It is interesting that the kirpan issue has arisen.
I do not think it’s unreasonable that Sikhs seek the right for children to carry kirpans to school, but I do believe that Sikhs need to accept the fact that kirpans may be banned from schools. In this case, it is a safety issue of banning potential weapons at school.
Every situation needs to be treated differently…we should not expect a blanket rule that kirpans would be allowed in every situation. For example, we all accept that kirpans are not allowed on a person when boarding a plane. In my view, bringing a kirpan to work is a different situation than bringing a kirpan to school (adult vs child).
aman,
why is it different to bring a kirpan on a plane than to bring it to school?
before 9/11 (and i hate using that as a reference, but it is a reality) airlines rarely had any problem allowing sikhs on with kirpans – and since when has a plane been held up with a kirpan? if we look to recent news it is schools that seem more dangerous.
im just curious where you are coming from.
ruby,
how do you define reasonable? there are places in the world that sikhs walk around opening with 3 foot kirpans – so is it always reasonable? and to add to p.singh’s comments – really sikhs with turbans shock people, as does the fact that we do not cut our hair (people are especially shocked by sikh women on this front). but who decides what is reasonable to be able to do? what is it that we are demanding when we demand the right to wear a kara in a french school? is it to contravene or be treated as special or to be treated as people with different beliefs that are valid?
Singh,
The difference lies in that there is much greater emphasis placed on security on a plane than at a school. To board a plane, each one of us goes through a series of security checks to ensure that nobody brings anything on the plane that could be easily used as a lethal weapon. Therefore, security in this context is paramount.
There is less emphasis placed on security at a school. To go to a school, you usually do not need to go through a series of security checks. In this case, security is not as paramount as it is when boarding a plane. Of course, some inner-city schools do require students to go through metal detectors, and these particular schools might have heightened security requirements.
A plane has never been held up with a kirpan before; but then again, before 9/11, a plane has never been held up with box cutters before. Even if one brings a kirpan onto a plane strictly as a religious symbol, there is an inherent risk of having the kirpan on the plane itself, as it can be forcibly removed from the person by another individual or group of individuals.
[quote comment="799"]Ruby,
Are you saying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable? That a Sikh wanting to ride a motorcycle sans helmet, albeit in contravention of existing law, is being unreasonable?
It seems that you are implying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable – I don’t know what other connection the “3 foot long kirpan” example has to Mr. Badesha’s legal battle.
Please clarify. Thanks.[/quote]
I’m saying that Sikhs should be reasonable in their demands. I don’t think Sikhs should expect to have the right to openly carry three foot long kirpans in public, as some Sikhs I have spoken to have expressed a wish to do. I made this clear in my original post.
[quote comment="808"]aman,
ruby,
how do you define reasonable? there are places in the world that sikhs walk around opening with 3 foot kirpans – so is it always reasonable? and to add to p.singh’s comments – really sikhs with turbans shock people, as does the fact that we do not cut our hair (people are especially shocked by sikh women on this front). but who decides what is reasonable to be able to do? what is it that we are demanding when we demand the right to wear a kara in a french school? is it to contravene or be treated as special or to be treated as people with different beliefs that are valid?[/quote]
Causing distress and intimidation and fear amongst people by openly wearing a large kirpan is an unreasonable demand to make upon society. Daggers are scary. If kirpans are to be worn they must be kept unsheated, be of a reasonable size and bluntness, and be worn underneath clothing. That’s a reasonable accomodation to make. Amritdharis can continue wearing their kirpan, and society is not intimidated and distressed by people openly carrying knives, especially when knife crime is a major concern in society.
Wouldn’t you say that this is a reasonable and reciprocal accomodation?
Also, the kara issue is not the same as the kirpan issue I just made, so you’re being disingenuous by conflating them. There are different issues relating to the kirpan which do not relate to kara.
I know personally of quite a few cases in which kirpans have been unsheathed in public in Britain causing fear and intimidation. It’s just that they have not made major headline news in a massive way that people don’t have them as reference points.
One case involved a recently arrived immigrant from India taking out his kirpan in a town centre causing great alarm and distress. The police were called and he was advised that culturally he could not do that because it is wrong to display weapons in public. Another case I know of took place in Scotland when a Sikh student unsheathed his kirpan in school and threatened pupils with it. He was subsequently transferred to another school and the story was hushed up so that it would not damage race relations.
During Vaisakhi in Birmingham last year fights took place in a public park between groups of Sikhs in conflict over management of a Gurdwara. Many were stabbed by kirpans and one man almost died. Sikh youths have been charged with attempted murder. There are quite a few other occasions in which kirpans have been unsheathed in public in Britain with intent to intimidate.
I think we can all agree that these are not incidents we wish to see occur, and that as such, there is a responsibility on Sikhs to wear their kirpan with responsibility and be reasonable in their demands regarding them. Having spoken to young men who are particularly fundamentalist followers of a certain sect, they expect that they should have the right to openly wear shastars of massive size, they really believe that they should have the right to walk around the streets of Britain openly carrying what actually amounts to swords. It is not wrong to tell them that this is an unreasonable demand to make.
Ruby,
You introduced the three-foot kirpan example to highlight ‘unreasonableness’ in an article discussing Mr. Badesha’s demand to wear a turban while riding a motorcycle. It was not clear wether you were implying Mr. Badesha was being unreasonable or were simply raising another point of interest.
Ruby,
I cannot agree with your emphasis on public perception being the litmus test for what a Sikh can or cannot do in adherence to his/her faith.
I strongly disagree with your comments that the kirpan must be worn underneath clothing. Certainly not. Every Sikh should follow her/his faith fearlessly. The public’s ignorant fear should not limit a Sikh in observing tenets of the faith. I have no issue with Sikhs wearing kirpans underneath their clothing, and none with those choosing to wear them outside of their clothing – the choice, however, should be personal, and not pushed down their throat by anyone.
It can be argued fairly strongly, that, in a post-9/11 world, segments of society are very intimidated by turban wearing, bearded men. That they are intimidated, is reason to educate them – not a reason to acquiesce to their ignorance.
Re kirpans, that there are a tiny number of individuals who may have used the kirpan as a weapon, should have little to no bearing on the ability to wear kirpans openly.
You have mentioned the school environment in one of your examples. I would ask you, are you aware of a kirpan being used as a weapon in any school? Could you please provide the case reference? (I am not asking this facetiously – genuinely curious as I am not aware of any such case).
On the other hand, much violence has been committed by baseball bats, hockey sticks, automobiles, pens, pencils, school bags, wet towels on school premises. Yet, these items, all of which have been used as bona fide weapons against other students, are happily allowed on school premises.
In contrast, despite no statistical evidence of violence, some will fear the kirpan based entirely on superficial grounds – its shape. It all falls on ignorance. In British Columbia, there is a large Sikh community, and well integrated into the public school system; no one bats an eye at Sikh students openly wearing their kirpans because the public, in general, has a better understanding of the Sikh faith and the kirpan.
Ruby,
1 – I do not agree with your reasonableness standard or the example you give.
2 – My example/analogy is not disingenuous (please refrain from making inflammatory accusations), but it goes to my point – that we as sikhs are not asking for the right to carry weapons or to be treated in some special way, but rather to be able to practice our faith as we do in other places. Rules of accommodation are created for this very reason.
Just to connect the kara comment more clearly for you – in France, the powers that be are distressed and intimidated by simple showings of religious affiliation – including the kara. By the logic presented in your posts, this is enough to ask Sikhs to refrain from wearing karas. This is the same logic used against kirpans. It is also used to racial profile people at airports.
One problem I see with this type of logic is that it is not engaged enough with helping people understand each other, but instead it is based around fitting in – or “reciprocating” – you let me keep something and I will give something up. What if our reciprocation in the form of wearing a kirpan of a “reasonable size” or hiding it under our clothes, is not enough? What if the community you are reciprocating with/trying to please is not satisfied with your “reasonable” gesture? Is it still reasonable?
So P Singh, you basically have no consideration of non Sikhs feelings regarding the kirpan? Even though the carrying of oversized kirpans and the unsheathing of them occurs, causes fear and alarm and intimidation amongst non Sikhs, you honestly believe that Sikhs have no responsibility to think of the concerns of others and how they are affected by their actions? That is incredibly arrogant isn’t it? You don’t think Sikhs have a responsibility to be moderate and reasonable in their manifestation of their religion specifically in the case of kirpans?
I have given you examples of kirpans being used for violence in public. The reason why the case of the schoolboy in Scotland is not in the news is because local school officers hushed up the story to prevent it damaging race relations there. There have been attempted murders and riots in which kirpans have been used as weapons, not just in Britain but in Canada too.
Multicultural societies require give and take. Sikhs need to respect the feelings and attitudes of non Sikhs as much as they have to have their beliefs respected. If you don’t do that, how can yous ay you’re integrating into a society?
People are frightened when they see people walking around with knives. Sikhs have to respect that and act accordingly, and restrict the wearing of kirpans to certain rules, ie that they are small in size, blunt, always remain sheathed, and remain worn under the clothing. This is a perfectly reasonable accomodation for a multicultural society. But this takes Sikhs being reasonable themselves. I was emphasising the importance of this.
Ruby,
I understand your sentiment,
But I ask what is the basic purpose of wearing a Kirpan in the first place for Sikhs?
Ruby,
It is a little disingenious to strengthen your argument, by stating
No where did I say that Sikhs have no responsibility or should have no regard to the feelings of non-Sikhs. In fact, I have pointed to ignorance as the root of this fear, and education as a means of alleviating it.
I also find your recurring reference of “unsheathing” kirpans to be grossly exaggerated as the vast majority of Sikhs simply do not unsheath their kirpans in public. We can both attest to our personal experiences in this matter – to no avail – or we can point to documented incidents where kirpans were unsheathed and caused harm/fear.
In over a hundred years of kirpans in Canada, surely, surely there should have been several such cases if unsheathing of kirpans was a common or even semi-common ocurrence. The examples you have provided carry very little weight when balanced against the dearth of such cases and incidents in Canada, the US, and the UK.
So, turning to Sikhs wearing kirpans openly, or turbans and beards for that matter, there will always be a segment of the population frightened, scared, intimidated by the image presented. Should I now hide my kirpan under my clothes, throw away my turban, and shave off my beard, in consideration of non-Sikhs who may find me intimidating, frightening, scary?
Not a chance. My responsibility extends to educating those who are open to learning more about me and my faith, being open, caring, and compassionate in my actions – but they do not include hiding my articles of faith for fear of what others may think.
No, it is not arrogant. It is practicing my faith openly, proudly, and fearlessly. If I was to adhere to your take on things, I should either have to remain cloistered amongst Sikhs only, or have to remove all markers of identity and faith, such as the turban, the un-shorn hair, the beard, the kirpan, and anything else that may frighten the ignorant.
[quote comment="824"]
But I ask what is the basic purpose of wearing a Kirpan in the first place for Sikhs?[/quote]
I think this explains it best…
Kirpan: The sword is the emblem of courage and self-defense. It symbolizes dignity and self-reliance, the capacity and readiness to always defend the weak and the oppressed. It helps sustain one’s martial spirit and the determination to sacrifice oneself in order to defend truth, oppression and Sikh moral values.The rule is never to do injustice and never let anyone do injustice.
No. Ruby, it sounds like your consternation stems in large part from either a gross misunderstanding of the role of the Kirpan (and what is considered appropriate use) versus your reaction to a group that you describe as “young men who are particularly fundamentalist followers of a certain sect.” By definition that implies that these young men are not the majority among kirpan-wearers, and that further, their actions may well contravene what the community at large has adopted as normative guidelines.
Aman, schools (in the U.S./Canada) are actually governed by rules that are stricter than other public spaces in a way that parallels are (new) expectations around airport security. The agist in me wants to know: Why, when taking amrit is supposed to be an affirmative choice that requires maturity, preadolescents and tweens (K-8, not highschool) are carrying kirpans? [I know you don't have to take amrit to carry a kirpan, but I don't meet many people in the diaspora who don't retain both].
At any rate, I was interested in the issue of the turban, but since we’re talking about the kirpan, perhaps we can also consider how to frame explanations to an audience that may not understand Sikhi’s required articles of faith.
As Jodha writes the fundamental purpose of a Kirpan is,
Then Ruby, doesn’t:
undermine that very purpose of wearing a Kirpan symbolically and practically? I would argue it does! Hence, it’s not an argument of: “give and take in a multicultural society”, but fundamentally being able to practice the Sikh faith.
That is one way to look at it. However, I was always under the impression that the kirpan was more of a nishaan (symbol), rather than something to be practically used. I think that this is where Ruby is coming from.
The kirpan did have practical uses in earlier times in India, but times change and society changes. I don’t think there is a practical use for the kirpan in everyday Western society. When you say that having a non-weaponized Kirpan is unpractical, you are implying that Sikhs should be using it in everyday situations where deemed necessary (e.g. preventing assaults, bank robberies, etc).
That being said, I believe I’m speaking with a Canadian bias, as we tend to frown more upon weapons in public. In U.S., there is much more of a “right to bear arms” culture, and in that case, I don’t see why carrying a kirpan in public would be in contradiction to any norms since people are allowed to carry concealed firearms in many states.
Aman,
You write:
For myself, the symbolism and practicality are not mutually exclusive. They share a very intimate relationship in terms of Sikh belief. How can we talk about a Kirpan representing self-defense and protecting those who are being oppressed (we know oppression is not always words, but physical force that requires physical force in-return to fight it) if we ask Sikhs to carry a blunt kirpan that must remained sheathed? This is not a question of Western-society’s “civilized” behavior and Eastern “barbarianism” (I knew of a Granthi who had to use his Kirpan when his newly arrived family from India was about to be violently attacked in the United States), but of the interrelationship between religious ideology and practice. Furthermore, the use of the Kirpan is a last resort-method of self-defense … maybe that’s why, as P.Singh argues, there are not many documented cases to exemplify it as a common or semi-common occurrence that should cause so much fear.
If it is just about symbolism, then would you be content with asking those who carry the Kirpan as a religious symbol to put on a Kirpan sticker?
Aman, I would argue that the kirpan should NOT be worn purely symbolically. It is meant for practical use (it is a weapon, but it is a weapon which can only be used in self defense as a last resort). By that same note, Sikh martial arts (e.g. gatka) also develop in the same context as the need for the kirpan — that you should be able to physically resist oppression and defend justice when required. In my view, the kirpan is fundamentally rooted in the concept of sant-sipahi, and so long as there is injustice and harm in the world, there will be a need for physical defense.
Phulkari,
That’s an interesting perspective, but that requires the weaponization of the kirpan. I believe most court victories by defendants who want to wear the kirpan have relied on the fact that the kirpan is strictly to be interpreted as a religious symbol. Specifically, from the following court case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multani_v._Commission_scolaire_Marguerite%E2%80%91Bourgeoys
The Court replied it was untrue that the kirpan represented violence, and that it had religious meanings instead.
I do not believe that the defendants in this case had made the argument that the kirpan was also to be used for self-defense or for helping those in need. Of course, had they made this argument, they would have been much less likely to win the case. This means that they either
a) Believed that the kirpan was for religious symbolism only
b) Were being disingenuous in their argument in court
If they choose to wear a kirpan sticker as their symbol, then that’s their choice. It doesn’t matter to me if their symbol is a sticker, a kirpan carved out of wood, a plastic kirpan, a dull metal kirpan, etc. It only becomes a public issue if the kirpan can be used as an actual weapon in public venues.
Camille,
[quote comment="848"]
Aman, I would argue that the kirpan should NOT be worn purely symbolically. It is meant for practical use (it is a weapon, but it is a weapon which can only be used in self defense as a last resort). By that same note, Sikh martial arts (e.g. gatka) also develop in the same context as the need for the kirpan — that you should be able to physically resist oppression and defend justice when required. In my view, the kirpan is fundamentally rooted in the concept of sant-sipahi, and so long as there is injustice and harm in the world, there will be a need for physical defense.[/quote]
From my perspective, I think it is more important to adhere to the spirit behind a particular requirement, rather than strict adherence to the requirement itself. The kirpan was chosen as the symbol because it was the weapon of choice back in those days, not for spiritually ordained reason. For example, had Guru Gobind Singh Ji ordained the Khalsa today, rather than in 1699, he may have chosen a rifle, because swords/daggers are no longer common amongst militias/soldiers. So the spirit behind it would be the same, but the end symbol or tool would be different. In this scenario, would a real rifle be allowed in public places such as schools? Definitely not, because it would definitely be deemed a security risk.
So how to get around this issue? Perhaps if one truly believes in the spirit of self defense, and saving those from oppressors, one must also engage in alternative methods to complement the kirpan. What if one learns karate, or some other martial art? Possessing this skill would allow one to faithfully fulfill this requirement in situations where a weaponized kirpan would be otherwise unavailable (e.g. a school).
Other weapons like gunpowder appeared in India (by way of Moguls) around the 1300-1400’s. I would add that Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji could have chosen other weapons but specifically chose the kirpan as an article of faith for the Khalsa. Additionally, Guru Ji cannot be equated to you or I, that can’t see the nature of weapons a year from today.
You are correct that gunpowder appeared in India at that time, but I believe that the sword was still the predominant personal weapon at the time (somebody can correct me if I’m wrong).
I’m not sure what you mean by the above statement. I believe he chose the kirpan because it was the cheapest, most widely available weapon at the time. He chose a weapon that most Sikhs could actually possess at the time. What other weapon could he have chosen? If Guru Ji had ordained the Khalsa today, I don’t see how the kirpan could be chosen as the practical weapon of choice. Sikhs used to go into battle with the kirpan in that era; sending your soldiers into battle today with a kirpan would be suicide.
Aman, I think you’re being too restrictive in your definition. A kirpan is a required religious article, and it is a weapon. I understand that classifying in court (as a weapon) may not help someone’s case, but I seriously doubt that Sikhs who wear the kirpan with a full understanding of why they wear it are doing so under the idea that it is “purely symbolic” and not meant for use.
I also think it’s preferable for Sikhs to be in generally good physical shape and learn self defense via martial arts, also. However, such training should not be seen as an alternative to the kirpan, but rather a compliment. Even within the past 100 years, the concept of holistic physical training and readiness was prevalent among Sikhs. Regardless of the advent of technology, the Khalsa are required to carry the kirpan and to be able to use it. This requirement is upheld both through teachings in the SGGSJi and in the Reht Maryada. I think there are practical explanations for why a person would want to carry a kirpan as opposed to a gun/rifle, as well, but that’s another conversation.
It is, in my opinion, a severe limitation of a Sikh’s right to free exercise for countries (who can’t even agree on what constitutes a proper “right to arms”) to attempt to severely limit its wear/use based on mistaken norms or ideas of the kirpan’s role and purpose.
I do agree that much of the opposition to the kirpan is the result of racism, xenophobia, and general ignorance.
I’m curious to know if you believe there is any situation/scenario/place where it is OK that the kirpan is disallowed (e.g. plane)?
aman,
one of the first things that comes to mind after reading your recent posts is the fact that the guru did not perscribe the symbolism of the kirpan as a kakkar. he perscribed the kirpan itself. for me this is one place where i have to stop and contemplate on if i am following the hukham of the guru. you have made clear that following that hukham, even when possible for you to, is something you are choosing not to do – and that is ultimately your choice.
secondly, your statement above assumes that you know the reason for the kirpan’s institution into sikhi. although i respect your learn-ed perspective, i would also like to point to a line written by guru gobind singh ji which equate the kirpan with a spiritual teacher (a pir/peer)- when refering to the kirpan and other weapons guru gobind singh ji in his bani says:
so there is a spiritual link to the kirpan. additionally, the mere fact that it is connected to a religious doctrinal idea imputes a certainly spirituality into the kirpan. finally, let us not forget the swords of miri and piri adorned by guru hargobind sahib ji…one of those was specifically representative of spirituality.
another feeling i had while reading your posts is that – by extension of your practicality argument, all of the kakkars and the dastar can be proven obsolete. this is simply not something i can do. if you accept that the kirpan no longer has a practical significance then what of the kachh and the kanga? there are far “better” ways of staying hygenic than to carry a wooden comb around or to wear a specific type of undergarment. again, these too were specifically prescribed – not merely their symbolism. yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but this is the logical (and dangerous) conclusion of this avenue of thought.
1 – why does it not matter to you? why do you not have a stake in upholding a religious identity or at least respecting it? 2 -why is it the kirpan that you are specifically worried about? others have mentioned that many things can become public issues because they too are capable of being used as weapons. even a dull kirpan can cause a lot of damage. i dont quite get why you are so adamant in your support of limiting the kirpan (and by extension all outward articles that become public issues) and so dismissive about reality. this is honestly mind boggling to me – perhaps you could differentiate for me why you are so passionate about this. from my perspective, it is amazing that the kirpan is a religious article and still has not been the cause of much actual “scare” in the west.
ultimately this is what i am hearing (please correct me if i am wrong) your point – like ruby’s – is that if people are ignorant (and get scared or threatened) we need to yield to their ignorance and change our practice of sikhi – the very practice that the guru put into place. i dont see this is as a reasonable option, nor do i see it is as one that fits into the symbolism of the kirpan, which we would all like to uphold.
If someone decided to wear a “sticker” Kirpan, and use that as the symbol, there is nothing anybody can do about it. It is that person’s choice, and they have every right to do that in a free society. I’m not sure what you think could be done about this short of performing some sort of vigilante justice on such persons via intimidation and assault under the pretext of defending one’s religion.
I don’t think I’ve been writing that passionately about this issue. I’m just exploring all the issues and the ideas that are involved.
No, I haven’t been arguing this at all. I’m not advocating yielding to any xenophobia and ignorance (which is the basis for popular opposition). I think we all try educate other people and lift them out of their ignorance as much as possible.
My main point is exploring how the kirpan can represent a security issue itself, despite its religious significance and the intentions behind using it. In certain situations, I am willing to acknowledge that security simply trumps anything else, including religious freedom.
Examples:
1) Boarding an aircraft
2) Secure areas that involve being the vicinity of high-profile politicians (e.g. prime ministers/presidents)
I don’t see how the above position makes me passionately against the kirpan.
Hmmmm…point taken. I see now that you are very supportive of the right to wear a kirpan – so long as people aren’t scared of it.
[quote comment="860"]
Hmmmm…point taken. I see now that you are very supportive of the right to wear a kirpan – so long as people aren’t scared of it.[/quote]
People being scared of it has nothing to do with what I said, as being scared is about emotions.
I am very supportive of the right to wear a kirpan – as long as it does not represent a justifiable security risk in a context where security is paramount.
So, back to this issue of the helmet –
Does no one else recognize this as a severe safety issue? Motorcycle accidents are among the most dangerous and fatal, and not wearing a helmet guarantees injury in the case of an accident. Personally, I don’t think Sikhs are able to practice better when they are dead. And I think Waheguru understands if the turban is replaced with a helmet for 15 minutes if it means the guy can be safe.
OR
Sikhs are creative. Can’t we design helmets that fit over pags, or some other kind of arrangement to satisfy the government’s need for safe motorcycling?
To me, this seems more of an effort to ensure safety rather than oppress someone’s religious rights. There has to be a way for both needs to be met.